ASHWANI GAGNEJA
26 March 2010 at 16:49
WE ARE A REGISTRED PARTNERSHIP FIRM WITH REGISTRAR OF FIRMS SINCE 1994. BUT ABOUT A YEAR BACK, A DISCREPENCY WAS FOUND AS THE NAME OF FIRM WAS MENTIONED AS AVS INDUSTRIES INSTEAD OF AVS SILVERPLATE & ADDRESS OF THE FIRM WAS MENTIONED AS THE RESIDENCE OF PARTNERS INSTEAD OF WORK PLACE IN THE REGN. CERTIFICATE.
SUBSEQUENTLY, THIS ERROR WAS RECTIFIED UNDER SECTION 64 B OF THE IPA ACT, WITH GREAT HASSELS.
NOW, KINDLY ADVISE WHETHER THIS RECTIFICATION BE APPLICABLE WITH RESTOSPECTIVE EFFECT OR NOT
THANKS & BEST REGARDS.
ASHWANI GAGNEJA
Anonymous
26 March 2010 at 16:00
One of my friend's father has borrowed some loans from few individuals. He is not in a position to pay back and thinking of filing an insolvency petition. He is not having any major assets to repay the loans. I understand that all the loans have been taken by him during the last 2-3 years only.
My friend is working in a town away from his father. He did not know that his father has borrowed that large amounts.
My query is whether my friend is in any way liable due to his father's loans due to this insolvency petetion being contemplated by his father.
Request you to please reply urgently.
Vijay Kumar
25 March 2010 at 22:55
Whether land acquisition can be assailed on the ground that it is against the public interest?
Anonymous
25 March 2010 at 18:00
Respected Experts,
The Supreme Court has posted our SLP in summer vacation. So how could I find out the date of its posting, as it is not updated in net.
Plz.clarify.
Pawan Patil
25 March 2010 at 15:00
Sir/ Madam,
I want know penalty cluse of U/s 138 of Dishonour of cheque.
I heart that if guitly is define then drawer has to pay twise amount of cheque
Can any one guide me on above?
Regards,Pawan
Anonymous
24 March 2010 at 23:28
24.3.10.
After cheques bounced, I had filled u/s 138. I also filled on 18.12.09. a money recovery suit for Rs 31 lakhs, along with application under ord.39 for an injunction to restraint the respondents from selling or alienating their property. respondents are a registered partnership firm registered under partnership act of 1932, along with the four partners constituting the firm. I am the creditor of that firm to whom the cheques were issued in discharge of liability to the firm. The property is in the name of the firm. I was granted the injunction order on 11.03.10. However the respondents in the mean while during pendency of the matter sold the property, on 15.02.10. to Mr. Hari.
a) The property is 3650 m2.
b) The whole property was mortgaged to a bank from march 2002. up to 15.02.10. This liability was discharged by the purchaser Mr. Hari out of the purchase amount, and it is so mentioned in the sale deed.
c) The partners on 15.02.10 sold all 3650 m2 to this Mr. Hari
d) Now it has come to light that the partners of the firm had in the month of May 2009 while under mortgage to the bank w/o disclosure, sold 500 m2 of the same property, to Mr. Subash, and another 500 m2 to Mr. Raj. i.e. total 1000 m2.
e) Mr. Subash and Mr. Raj are close family friends.
f) by private agreement Mr. Subash and Mr. Raj decide to start some business together. Where Mr. Raj has come to an understanding with Mr. Subash that he will offer his 500 m2 as his portion of seed capital.
g) The partners now i.e.15.11.09 receive notice from their banker to pay up or this property will be attached.
h) The partners approach Mr. Subash, to sell the remainder of the property.
i) Mr. Subash keeping in mind the business understanding with Mr. Raj decides to purchase the whole property, and signs on 08.12.09. a MOU with the partners before a notary, on Rs.20/- stamp paper, for purchasing the entire property i.e. 3650 m2. for Rs. 70 lakhs, intending to cancel the earlier deeds of 500 m2 each with himself and Mr. Raj. So that he has one deed for the whole of the property of 3650 m2. paying a token amount of Rs. 60000/- by cheque at the time of signing the MOU. The cheque is not encashed but valid on date and in the hands of the partners. This MOU also contains a clause that an amount of 45 lakhs will be paid to the bank from the purchase price to get out of the Mortgage.
j) I come across this MOU, so I file a money recovery suit with an application for injunction to restraint the partners from selling the firms property.
k) The partners realizing that Mr. Subash is less willing to go ahead with the sale unless I am made party to the MOU and consequently settled, The partners quietly, sell the property to Mr. Hari. For Rs. 55 lakhs. 45 to the bank and 10 to the partners.
l) Mr. Hari expeditiously goes and takes a loan of one crore, mortgaging this property.
Result:
1. Mr. Subash and Mr. Raj have a sale deeds for 500 m2 each on an unpartitoned property out of the whole 3650 m2. dated May 09.
2. Mr. Subash has a MOU, amounting to a contract for sale for the entire property of
3650 m2.
3. Mr. Hari has a sale deed for the entire 3650 m2, which contains the 1000 m2 earlier sold to Mr. Subash and Mr. Raj.
5. The bank has a mortgage on the property, the sale deed of this property is encumbered by earlier deeds of Mr. Subash and Mr. Raj
4. I have an anfractuous injunction and a money recovery suit for Rs. 31 lakhs, against the partners who are now disappeared with 10 lakhs.
What is the recourse available to me?
What is the legal position of the others, i.e. Subash, Raj, Hari, The Bank
Will appreciate your advise and comments
rajvinder singh
24 March 2010 at 21:06
sir the suit was decreed by the lower court in 2000 in which i was oredred by the trail court to pay principle amount of rs 1,60,000 along with 6% interest from year 1995 to 2000 in this suit for recovery.
the opp. party went in appeal which modified the order of lower court and i was directed to pay the 3,55,000 after being calculated at rate of 24% interest from year 1995 to 2000 and further from year 2000 to 2009 the amonut to be calculated at rate of 24% per anum.
now i wana to prefer appeal to high court.i am under confusion on which amount i calculate the court fee to be affixed in high court whether it be 1,60,000 or 3,55,000 anlong with interest amount.
Anonymous
24 March 2010 at 17:51
Dear Sir/Madam,
My colleague has received a summon from Metropolitan court under PSS Act due to ecs failure. Please advice on the proceedings on the above act and how can it affect him.
Thanks
sushil bhatt
24 March 2010 at 17:45
Dear All,
One bank based in Kanpur issued a Bank Guarantee (BG) in our name on behalf of our Sub Contractor (say Z) against perforamance of the contract between our company and the sub contractor. As per contract the Jurisdiction place is at New Delhi.
A dispute arisen between the parties in between and we were eligible to invoke the BG as per contract. Z immdtly moved an application u/s 9 of A&C Act before ADJ court, Kanpur against the issuing bank and impleaded us as a party to restrain both the respondents from releasing and invoking the BG and accordingly got interim injuction as prayed for before 4-5 months back. But the ADJ court is not taking-up the matter properly and adjourning the matter from one date to next date since then.
Now what way we should adopt to get the BG invoked.
1. Should we challenge the matter in High Court strictly on jurisdiction ground? or;
2. Should we pray for directions from High Court to ADJ court to dispose off the matter within a time frame issued by High Court?
© 2025 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Section 138 NI: Unstamped Return Memo
Can i File a case against a borrower who has issued a cheque the cheque got bounced.
The problem is that the customer banker has not stamped the Bounce Memo / Return Memo.
Can i file section 138 basis unstamped Return Memo